A 66-year-old suspect was arrested at the scene, police said.
Two children are dead and 15 people were injured after a woman drove her car into a child’s birthday party, Sheriff Troy Goodnough said in a press conference Saturday evening.
The two children who were pronounced dead at the scene were siblings, an 8-year-old girl and a 5-year-old boy, according to police.
Doesn’t seem like an appropriate sentiment here. The woman was drunk. And I’ve been to Monroe Michigan, you’re not going to get around using public transit.
The sentiment isn’t against her car use specifically, but more the infrastructure that makes one completely reliant on a car, and doesn’t give you the option to get the bus home after you’ve had a few drinks.
It’s called an Uber…
You’re right, it would be great to expand public transit so that people always have a reliable option besides a personal car. I just don’t think a comment that consists entirely of “fuck cars” is fitting regarding this particular incident.
Any time there’s an anti car stance to take, somebody will show up with some pedantic nit pick about times when they’re useful, and I don’t think it’s necessary to caveat the original point to try to get ahead of any of those people. It’s not the only thing to say about this incident but I think it is valid and gets the conversation started about how car dependency is involved here.
With respect, I don’t think it’s accurate to say this is a nitpick. People in Monroe Michigan drive cars. This story isn’t about infrastructure, it’s about a drunk driver killing children. And if someone wants to make the case that robust public infrastructure would have avoided this tragedy (which may be true) they need to make the case. Not show up and essentially say nothing but “fuck the thing that people from this place require for every facet of their lives.”
Someone who is familiar with the whole “fuck cars” milieu might understand what that comment is supposed to mean. But for the people I know from Monroe you might as well be speaking a foreign language. They hear “you can’t have a car” and they’ll lose their job and be unable to go to the grocery store.
You’re having a conversation with me, which I appreciate. Saying just “fuck cars” isn’t a good conversation starter, and if the goal is winning people over it starts one on the wrong foot.
The original comment wasn’t even just saying fuck cars, it was a link to a community that discusses the types of infrastructural issues that allow incidents like this to happen. You say that this story isn’t about the infrastructure, but unless we talk about that, nothing will change and these things will continue to happen.
In response to the two (and counting) Uber bros here: Uber isn’t always available, especially in rural communities. Uber drivers don’t always want to deal with drunks, and frankly, shit’s expensive, which, like it or not, is going to keep some people from using it. The US has a really common anti-pattern of exporting systemic failures as person responsibility failings, but I’m telling you that there’s a reason why our drunk driving rates are consistently and significantly higher than what you see in West Europe/Japan/etc. despite the fact that we’ve spent untold amount of money on enforcement and public health campaigns. It’s not because Americans are uniquely irresponsible; it’s because of low urban densities and car dependency. If you don’t need a car to get home, then your drunk ass will just take the bus or walk. This is 100% an infrastructure problem that we’ve tried to solve with finger wagging, enshittified taxis, and cops, and to nobody’s surprise but ours, we continue to have shit metrics on this.
Uber exists.
Lack of public transportation options are not a viable excuse for driving a vehicle drunk.
If you choose to put alcohol into your body without an “exit plan” then at no point does any other entity own that choice and the consequences of that choice.s
Yes, fuck cars, fuck the lack of public transportation and all of that.
Your point has no reason being here though.
I don’t disagree with any of your points. I just also believe that this happens less when there is less dependency on cars. The driver is still at fault, but just blaming her doesn’t prevent this from happening again in the future.
NJB has a video on cars hitting buildings. Pretty obviously, less people driving makes less people hit buildings. In this case it may not be the cause, but as a statistic, I would say that proper planning would help to reduce this type of accident.
Build infrastructure that doesn’t prioritise the car (and is consequently safer, even for drunks) and these events will happen a lot less often. Traffic calming, massively lower speed limits, banning absurdly large SUVs, and providing viable (and safe) alternatives to driving will make everyone much safer.
I don’t think she woul’ve killed a lot of people while being drunk on a bicycle
That’s beside the point.
Is it? The US tries really hard to frame its systemic failures as personal responsibility problems. There’s a reason the US has significantly higher both drunk driving rates and vehicle vs pedestrian collision rates compared to the rest of the developed world. If everybody has to drive a car everywhere to do anything because that’s how the system’s been built, then there’s going to be consequences for that. Car-based infrastructure, car-based consequences, it’s not rocket surgery.
When someone loses control of a vehicle, especially the big, heavy vehicles auto makers have been pushing lately, the car-based consequences are going to be much more catastrophic than someone losing control of a bicycle or their own two feet.